Here’s a little scene rendered in Blender Internal.
ugh, now we’re going to see a bazillion “realistic” night renders of wet cobblestones, like with the super-green, uniform grass before it.
the least you can do would be to turn off the specularity, and model an actual scene.
some proper ripple bump mapping would help, too.
also, rose petals aren’t shiny, they’re actually fuzzy.
and if they get wet, it collects in droplets.
additional ranting, but not against you in particular…
when you follow a tutorial, and work along with it, it is reasonable to expect a result similar the the author’s.
however, this result is for learning purposes, and generally shouldn’t be shared with the world.
instead, you should take what you learned from it, and apply it to your own original idea(s).
if you must share results from tutorials, the tests subforum is a better place to do so.
I don’t mean to be negative or critical, I’m just trying to help.
@cmonson BTW I left a comment on your wip.
When somebody follows a tutorial and shares this in a forum it would be nice to mention that it is from a tutorial and not to share this as a own work! Following a tutorial and adding a single object (maybe from another tutorial?) isn’t something you should share! I do a lot of tutorials too, but I don’t share it as my work or generally share it…
Anyway the result you got from the tutorial isn’t the result it should be! Don’t know what you did “wrong” or if you wanted it to look that way.
Good job. Keep practicing!
I think that this is an absolutely outstanding image. :eek:
Particularly amazing is the way that you have used the gaps between the blocks: there is fire under there! And, on top of it (elsewhere in the frame) there’s a glossy coating that is ice!
The purely artistic juxtaposition of these elements (if I may be pardoned for waxing eloquent here … :o) … takes my breath away. Really. “Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. And Rose.”
This is Art. This is something that uses the technology, in a way that only the technology could do, to make a statement without words.
The only technical comment that I could make is that it might be a good thing to add a small fill-light, layer-linked to the rose, to inject just a little more light onto that object. Since it is a “key” element, it does need a “key” light. (I would confine the light strictly to the rose, not the stem, and use it sparingly … just to lighten the shadows specifically in that spot, specifically on that object.)
Go to Gallery. Go directly to Gallery. Go ahead and pass “GO!” You deserve $200.
That’s cool. The reflections are throwing me off though. If not for that, outstanding!
but the problem is that it is not his image he used the direct output of a tutorial http://www.blenderguru.com/how-to-make-puddles/
Wow, it looks like a very good tutorial. :eek:
But I didn’t use it to do my render. Anyway, I don’t use the same techincal: I didn’t know we could do that with a “Raymirror” Texture, so I used an alpha object to do the puddle. And I didn’t use the same textures for the ground, and it’s not the same background.
So I wonder what am I suppose to have copied?
well both pictures look the same so it can very easily be mistaken for a copy of the tutorial.
Yes, I understand. Doesn’t matter. :rolleyes:
It’s maybe because of the camera’s position, but it was the only way to represent an object on the floor.
sorry then, it just looked so much like you did… :o
in that case, I would suggest you do read the tutorial, it has a few useful texturing tips.
sundialsvc4, thank you. I very nearly wet myself reading that.
edit: “if I may be pardoned for waxing eloquent here …” ‘waxing eloquent’ is a phrase that’s used not nearly often enough.
I’m not trying to pick fights or anything, but really? These are completely unrelated?
Less than a week after the tutorial was posted this image was posted. The style is identical, composition is very similar, the materials may be slightly different, but it’s imitating the same thing. Colors in the scene are identical, reflections except for a slightly different material are identical. To say this wasn’t at least heavily influenced by the tutorial or the artwork produced by it is just too far fetched for me. Regardless it’s a nice looking image and you took it a step further than the tutorial did, but I just can’t believe that two people would produce two practically identical unrelated pieces in under a week. Just doesn’t work in my mind. Maybe I’m wrong but yeah…
Nice. What was your inspiration?
The tutorial looks like it has a few great tips in there and is based on solid texturing techniques. (Looks like I’ll be doing it too ) However, the reflections in the tutorial and in the posted image are distracting and look completely contrived.
No reason however not to take the same techniques and produce something very nice. You could back down on the reflection. You can do many things to break it up mix it and so on until you get something that looks more realistic or artistic if that is what you want.
I love the flower though. That was very well done.
another texture, another background - and anyway, it is from the tutorial. No one can tell me that it isn’t, who would believe that??? Are you guys really that simple? I can’t believe you try to to make us believe it is your own work and you never saw that tutorial before…
It is really a non issue. There is enough change even if from the tutorial to qualify as one’s own work and it should not have to be defended.Even if it was very close - one still has to do the work in the tutorial. If a person wants to lie about it that is another issue that has nothing do do with anything thing here, really, unless you want to turn this into some kind of moral discussion. Whether it is from the tutorial or not does not matter.
quitchou - Please do something with your reflections! It still looks completely out of place. try another image and back way down on the reflection value.